1 Introduction

Marine turtles are important, not only for their economic and intrinsic value, but because the presence of an adequate population of marine turtles is often an indicator of healthy marine ecosystem (Perrine 2003). Of the seven species of marine turtles, four are classified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) as critically endangered, while two are in the next highest risk category (IUCN 2002). The marine turtle status in Asia is of interest for two reasons. First, human activity in the region presents a wide variety of threats, including excessive and illegal harvesting for meat, shells, skin, and eggs; habitat loss from development of beaches; destructive fishing methods, such as dynamite fishing and use of drift nets; and pollution from shipping and tourism. Many of these threats are increasing rapidly with economic growth (IUCN 2002; Safina 2006). Second, marine turtles are a migratory species; their habitat is spread throughout a large number of countries such as China, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Thus, international coordinated policies to conserve marine turtles are more likely to be effective than those pursued by countries on their own. There is evidence of willingness of countries in East and Southeast Asia to collaborate, but so far the measures taken have not been adequate to the challenge.Footnote 1

This paper reports the results of a comparative research project carried out in China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The study explored the prospects for increased regional or national efforts to conserve marine turtles in Asia, whether Asians value turtles more for their use as food, shells, etc., than for nonuse values; whether Asians are aware of marine turtles and their plight; and whether there is sufficient local willingness to pay to support larger conservation efforts. Using a common survey instrument, the contingent valuation method (CVM) was applied to assess the willingness of local populations to pay for the conservation of marine turtles. This study also explores how various payment vehicles affect people’s decisions to support national and regional conservation plans. The survey instrument included an extensive set of attitudinal questions that allowed assessment of the relationship between respondent attitude, socioeconomic characteristics, and willingness to pay. The surveys were dropped off at residences and administered using similar procedures and protocols in each study country. Altogether, 3680 respondents participated in the survey; recipients were randomly selected from across all administrative districts in Beijing, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Bangkok, and Davao City. The most populous of these cities is Beijing with over 15 million people; the smallest is Davao City in the Philippines, with about 1 million. Average annual per capita income ranges from USD 540 for Ho Chi Minh City/Hanoi to USD 2490 for Bangkok. There are also variations in culture and familiarity with the uses of marine turtles.

2 Attitudes Toward Environment, Wildlife, and Marine Turtles

Respondents ranked ten public policy issues: economic problems, poverty, education, health, crime/violence/inequality, government/good governance, infrastructure, environment, terrorism, and relations with other countries. The survey revealed that people in all four countries accord relatively low priority to environmental protection—only in Beijing does it appear among people’s top 3 concerns (see Table 7.1). While environmental concerns do not feature as priority concerns, over 70 % of the respondents in all four countries agree that environmental problems are not properly addressed.

Table 7.1 Social and economic priorities
Full size table

Respondents were asked to rank nine issues: air pollution, water pollution , solid waste, loss of endangered species, deforestation, traffic congestion, soil erosion, global warming, and destruction of coral reefs. Among the top 3, there were few surprises. It appears people are primarily concerned with environmental problems that affect their daily lives. Davao City was the only city where a nonurban issue (deforestation) ranked first, probably because it is located close to natural forests and has faced increasing episodes of flooding. In none of the cities did wildlife conservation appear among the top 3 environmental concerns (see Table 7.2).

Table 7.2 Environmental priorities
Full size table

Studies have highlighted that conservation efforts for lesser-known species have less public appeal than for those species that are more charismatic, cute, or familiar (Tisdell and Wilson 2006). If this is the case, marine turtles may have fairly strong appeal.

First, as Table 7.3 shows, the marine turtle is not an obscure species. Asians are familiar with them, even though they may have neither seen live turtles nor consumed their meat or eggs. These are, after all, urban populations with access to television and, as the survey results suggest, this may be a more important source of information about environmental issues than formal education. Second, respondents in the five cities surveyed showed common preferences for marine turtles.

Table 7.3 Familiarity with and knowledge about marine turtles (% of total respondents)
Full size table

The survey asked respondents to prioritize six endangered species for priority of conservation resources; the species were marine turtles, dugongs, whale sharks, Philippine eagles, black-faced spoonbills, and Javan rhinos. In all cases, marine turtles were ranked either first or second (Table 7.4).Footnote 2 An individual may be concerned about animals in general or specific species, without taking action to prevent their extinction; she/he may assume that someone else will or should solve the problem. There is some evidence of this in the survey results. When 57–65 % of respondents strongly agree that “it is everyone’s duty to ensure that plants and animals as we know them today will exist for mankind in the future,” one might conclude that most people have pro-environmental attitudes. When faced with making personal trade-offs, however, there is a notable drop in supporting opinions. Only 4 % of the respondents in Davao strongly agreed that “Governments should raise taxes for more endangered species protection”; the percentage of “strongly agree” in the other cities was similarly low.

Table 7.4 Ranking for priority in resource allocation
Full size table

3 The Potential for Private Contributions for Marine Turtle Conservation

To assess WTP, a hypothetical marine turtle conservation program was constructed. Respondents were provided information about the importance of marine turtles to coastal and ocean ecosystems and the threats and risks of extinction. Once the hypothetical marine conservation program was introduced, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to contribute to the program by paying a monthly surcharge on their electricity bills or a period of 5 years.Footnote 3

Two variants of the surcharge were tested: a mandatory charge and a voluntary charge. In the mandatory payment scheme , respondents were presented with a hypothetical referendum and asked to vote for or against a specified monthly surcharge on all household electricity bills for a period of 5 years. Respondents were told to assume that if more than 50 % voted in favor of the referendum, the surcharge would be imposed on all households, regardless of how they voted. In the voluntary payment scheme, respondents were asked whether they would voluntarily make a private contribution, with no assurance that anyone else would pay it. Those who are willing to voluntarily donate would check off in their monthly water bills that they are willing to contribute the specified sum as contribution for marine turtle conservation .

Separate groups were asked their WTP for one of three marine turtle conservation packages: (1) a region-wide program financed through a mandatory charge; (2) a region-wide program financed through voluntary contributions; and (3) a national program financed through a mandatory charge. Region-wide programs would involve the collaboration of many countries, including the four surveyed. In principle, the likelihood of success of the regional program would be greater than that of a single-country program, given the species’ transboundary habitat. For the region-wide program to be financed by the mandatory charge system, over 50 % of respondents in each of the four countries would have to vote in favor for the program to be implemented. In other words, respondents were told to assume that if the referendum did not pass in one of the countries, the international effort would not go ahead.

All together, 1249 respondents were randomly selected to vote on the region-wide program with mandatory payment, 1220 on the region-wide program with voluntary payment , and 1211 on the single-country program with mandatory payment. Each set of respondents was divided into five groups, each of which was asked to give a yes-or-no response to one of the five amounts, or bid levels. In the research design, the common bids used in all cities surveyed are USD 0.02, USD 1, and USD 5. The other two bids are set by the researchers in each country. The Table 7.5 shows all the bids used in each country. For example, the five bids for Beijing are USD 0.02, USD 0.5, USD 1, USD 5, and USD 7.5. The five bids for Bangkok are USD 0.02, USD 0.25, USD 1, USD 2.5, and USD 5.

Table 7.5 Number of respondents saying “Yes” to each bid under the Regional Mandatory Program
Full size table

The findings show that, while respondents are familiar with marine turtles and believe them to be important, they are not concerned to a degree that would lead them to make personal trade-offs by making private contributions. Table 7.5 shows that only the lowest surcharge (USD 0.02) would pass a referendum in all four countries. For Davao City, Bangkok, Hanoi, and Ho Chi Minh City, the referendum would also pass at the next lowest bid prices which were USD 0.1, US 0.25, and USD 0.5, respectively. The second lowest bid for Beijing was USD 0.5 and only 48 % of the respondents voted to pass the referendum. At bids of USD 1 and above, the referendum would not pass in any of the countries.

For each city surveyed, respondents indicate a WTP only a small payment. In the Regional Mandatory Conservation Program, the mean WTPs (MWTP) for Davao City was found to be USD 0.17/household/month and for Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, USD 0.83/household/month.Footnote 4 MWTP for the two higher income cities were found to be USD 1.16 and USD 1.41/household/month for Beijing and Bangkok, respectively. These values are comparable to the WTP values from other studies on species conservation in Asia.Footnote 5 The pattern of response to the Regional Voluntary Program in Table 7.6 indicates that, similar to the Mandatory Program, the percentages of the respondents who would be willing to contribute decreases significantly as the bids rise.

Table 7.6 Number of respondents saying “Yes” to each bid under the Regional Voluntary Program
Full size table

No significant difference was found in the level of support for variations in the conservation programs we offered. With the exception of Ho Chi Minh City/Hanoi, where results suggest that respondents would be willing to pay significantly higher for the mandatory program, respondents in Beijing, Davao City, and Bangkok appear to be indifferent. Also, there were no significant differences in the MWTP between international and national scale of efforts. Again, Ho Chi Minh City/Hanoi is the exception with where the MWTP for the conservation efforts is higher at the international scale.Footnote 6 One encouraging finding is that a significant percentage of respondents would voluntarily pay, regardless of whether people paid. While the estimated MWTP values are lower than WTP values for conserving endangered species in developed countries, given the large difference between the gross national income of the United States and the four countries surveyed (16 times greater than that of Thailand in 2005), this difference in MWTP was not unexpected. For example, the average US citizen reported a WTP of USD 7.5/hh/month (Loomis et al. 1996) for conservation of the spotted owl and USD 2.77/hh/month for the gray-blue whale conservation (Bulte and Van Kooten 1999).Footnote 7

Even if those who agreed to make voluntary contributions are not in the majority, and they are willing to make only small contributions, they do constitute a potential source of finance for conservation.

Commonalities were observed in the reasons as to why respondents decided to contribute money for the establishment of a marine turtle conservation fund. There appeared to be consensus that the most important reason was because respondents think the marine turtle is an important animal and should be protected. Table 7.7 shows that Vietnamese respondents placed more importance on the “collaborative efforts” of countries, whereas Thai respondents saw the merit of this initiative for marine turtle conservation as paving the way for other endangered species conservation efforts. This was also the sentiment of those in Beijing, although this respondent group also attached importance to international collaborative efforts.

Table 7.7 Reasons why respondents decided to contribute money for the establishment of a marine turtle conservation fund (% of respondents who said “Yes” to the WTP question)
Full size table

As to why respondents decided not to support the proposed marine turtle conservation fund, with the exception of Thailand, the most common response was that they could not afford the amount. Affordability was less of an issue for Bangkok respondents than was attitude toward the government; at the time of the survey period in Bangkok, perceptions of the government tended to be negative, and the most common reason for deciding not to support marine conservation was because they thought it should be the responsibility of the government which, after all, already had their tax revenue (Table 7.8).

Table 7.8 Reasons why respondents voted “against” the referendum (% of respondents who said “No” to the WTP question)
Full size table

4 Factors Influencing Decision Making

To analyze factors that influenced respondent decisions, the data for all the three scenarios (Regional Mandatory, Regional Voluntary, and National Mandatory) were pooled together. The variables included in the multivariate analysis and definitions are presented in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 Variables included in the multivariate analysis and definitions
Full size table

Results in Table 7.10 conformed to a priori expectations for all of the models where the Bid variable was significant at a level of 0.01 with a negative sign, indicating that as the Bid price increases, respondents are less likely to answer “Yes” to the WTP question. In the pooled sample, education and income were also significant to the 0.01 level, both with positive coefficients, indicating that the higher the level of education and income, the higher the probability those respondents would vote in favor of a mandatory payment. Respondents who are already members of environmental organizations were also more likely to vote “Yes” and in the pooled sample, this variable was significant to 0.01.

Table 7.10 The logit regression
Full size table

Apart from Bid and Income, which were statistically significant for all country models, the influence of other variables varied. Education, for instance, was significant only for China and Vietnam, at a 0.05 significance level. The Member variable was significant only for China and the Philippines. The size of the household and whether the respondent was married were significant only in the Vietnam model; both had negative coefficient signs, suggesting that the larger the household size, the lower the probability they would be willing to pay. This is consistent with the expectations that larger families would have larger expenditures; similarly, married people would have larger expenditures than respondents who were single.

5 Summary and Conclusions

This study shows that people in several cities in Southeast Asia are already exposed to an abundance of information; they are at least generally aware, if not well informed, about marine turtles. They believe that conservation is important, but at the time of the study, their priorities understandably lie with other public policy issues, such as improving governance and reducing poverty. A mandatory surcharge on electricity bills to support marine turtle conservation would only pass at the lowest bid of USD 0.02 in all cities surveyed.

The results provide some support for the proposition that voluntary contributions could provide considerable sums for marine turtle conservation ; based on the percentages of respondents in the cities who would voluntarily pay USD 1 per month, the potential revenue would be around USD 50 million/year.Footnote 8 This is much less than what could be mobilized were the mandatory payment referenda passed in all four countries surveyed (USD 135 million). However, it is more than the current global expenditures on marine turtle conservation of all 162 conservation organizations combined, which is estimated at some USD 20 million per year (Treung and Drews 2004). Having said that, the harsh reality is that actually mobilizing these contributions would be difficult. The voluntary payment vehicle explored was a “checkoff” for a marine turtle conservation program on a household’s monthly electricity bill. While this might work once, it is not feasible to put checkoff boxes on utility bills for every species or environmental cause. In the long run, these efforts must be financed primarily out of general government revenue or “user-pay” schemes like environmental service payments.

An important implication of the findings is that the traditional prescription of “raising awareness” is unlikely to yield results: people in Asia are already well informed about the existence and plight of marine turtles. Efforts to develop conservation finance mechanisms should therefore be directed in a different and more difficult direction: improving the trustworthiness of government tax collection and expenditure systems. Conservation agencies could play a role by working with governments to set up trust funds in which public funds could be deposited with confidence. Charities could also explore the potential for voluntary contributions suggested by this study; their efforts should go primarily into identifying the relatively small segment of the population that is willing to contribute and to developing cost-effective ways of collecting payments. Eventually, as incomes rise and governance improves, Asia’s ability to pay for conservation will increase. In the meantime, contributions from the international community will continue to be important in conserving what is, after all, a global resource.